I read this in a comment on ConPro yesterday evening, and I haven't been able to stop thinking about it. It had to do with the best explanation for clown world, i.e. the seeming off-the-rocker inanity of things happening in the world, combined with how obviously engineered, fabricated and manipulative these phenomena are.
The explanation is that none of this is 'for us'. Today was influenced by the 'history' being made 100 years in the past. The history being made today is for future decades, not for us. Elites are thinking that far down the line; it is an illusion that they are responding to people's concerns today as though in real time. The reactivity of the current system to 'the people' is part of the bells and whistles. It's a show.
The current elites don't give a fuck what we think about what is going on. They simply need a certain percentage of the population to be influenced by the century-old history. We're cattle, and things are easier when we're pacified, or fighting the 'fights' they planned for us to fight decades ago. Even our revolutions are predictable.
But this notion that keeps sticking with me is how seemingly well this explains why today's events seem so senseless. It's because they are done with no regard for whether they have sense today.
50-100 years from now, most people will believe that the hell they are living in (their 'normal') had a story, an explanation for it. That will be their history. They will believe around the year 2020 there was a massive pandemic that killed millions of people. It will be their Spanish Influenza story. They will believe Russia was attempting to interfere with world politics, and was activating sleeper cells of white supremacists in the west in an attempt to overthrow democracy, while our governments were burdened with this interference, together with trying to heroically save the people from Covid.
They will be told how this took us to nearly the brink of extinction - and minor conflicts here and there will be supporting evidence. We are already amassing tons of memes and video and photographic evidence for war, famine, you name it.
They will be told that the paradigm under which they will be living was the global solution of the new world order that brought us back from the brink of destruction. Perhaps if the vaccines are having (or will have) major impacts on fertility, the lack of replacement births will act as further support that something fearful happened to the world back in the early 2020s.
Consider it for a while. We need only imagine that we too are victims of this same process. Imagine that during the 'Holocaust', there was a part of the population commensurate with today's 'alt-right', which absolutely knew it was bullshit as it was being spun. Maybe they argued with each other like we do today. Except they didn't have the internet or social media.
How much easier it would have been for the establishment to erase those skeptical voices from history. And of course, the implications of this theory would also include that today's push for internet censorship has very little to do with our free speech rights today, but is instead geared toward curating (purifying) the internet so that what is transmitted to people 50-100 years from now will contain no evidence that anyone ever disagreed - at least nobody but the fringe crazies.
there are tons of evidence which proves everything you wrote is correct. I'll provide two examples. first, there were people who knew both the holocaust and the Nuremberg trials were a farce. in the educated circles, there wasn't even a debate. they knew it and they had the evidence to prove it, but they didn't have an outlet to get that evidence out there. secondly, this is why the big corporations are going so woke and pro pedo faggotry. it is because of the fusarium parasite which is spreading from person to person, infecting them and making them gay and trans. they know that in 20 years, half of the population will be faggots and so they want to get ahead of it now so that they will win points with the faggots later. they are playing the long game.
I know the post/comment you're talking about, and I had a similar epiphany. My takeaway is that this is an area we can work on much easier than glowing in the dark. Creating a persistent and coherent record of what's happening today, the insanity of the official record, and even piecing together truth from the past where we can find it. This is something we can do. We already do it, but it's all over the place and takes effort and time to learn about from different sources, and we don't do it with a voice of authority.
I think organizing around this is just as important and doesn't carry the same risk and challenges of something like glowing RWDS for example. Asha Logos is someone who is already doing this for ancient history for example.
This isn't side gig work though. We need people who dedicate their lives to these tasks and do it right.
Would it be possible to create a foundation around this? For donations, write-offs, etc, and to make it easier to collect funding? Planting time capsules and some way to make sure they are opened and disseminated in 100 years or something seems like a useful goal.
Yes it's possible. I think execution is probably more important than funding, the biggest thing is thinking ahead and being prepared for subversion and opposition.
Not sure I'm on board with time capsules but I wouldn't oppose a group who thought they were a good idea.
Bingo. This is my understanding of the world. I believe we live in a fabricated reality, one that is in preparation for something to come.
I enjoy these kind of illuminations because when you see the world this way everything suddenly makes sense. Thus, seeing the current chaos through this lens makes the chaos understandable.
It's why the took over all the institutions. So they get to write the history books. They get to set the narrative for what people believe in the future. They did the same thing with the NSDAP and the holohoax.
But was that a long term plan that was implemented? Or is it just jews doing was they evolved to do? They are just genetically programmed to exploit cultural narratives and control cultural information for economic benefit, the way some people got good at growing crops or raising animals. They started out as priests. How do priests make a living? They’ve evolved to do this over 5000 years.
I'd almost go further down the rabbit hole. The amount of foreshadowing in popular culture to these world changing events is overwhelming. It would not surprise me one of two things: some type of device/person to see into future timelines and/or this is all a simulation with the outcome already known. Yeah, yeah, I know. Tin foil hat. The Simpson's is what I have a problem with. Too many predictions. Too many co-incidences.
You're very welcome. I read a good deal into the original post, elaborated on it heavily; the product of not being able to get it off one's mind for an entire day.
Controlled demolition was called back when the towers fell. It wasn't referencing the towers at all. The obama firestorm has only quietly gained speed since. MKUltra has been perfected
I can see it now, 75 years in the future, documentaries of the "horrible attack on 1/6". By then they will have footage, taken from many different sources, but shown then as only from 1/6. Videos of the "attack" with blood and gore everywhere. That's why they keep crazily reporting it like it was some kind of massacre! Any representative that dies anywhere close to this time frame may even be reported as being killed in the "attack". They will make martyrs out of them! Yep. I do believe that you are on the right path.
[ - ] CHIRO [op] 1 point 1.9 yearsMay 18, 2022 00:13:06 ago (+1/-0)*
Exactly. Those of us with sense today see these reports, and we cannot make sense of them. This is because they aren't intended to make sense today. The idea would be that the elites are now targeting today's activities at such a distance into the future, that it doesn't matter to them whether today's public thinks the news makes sense. Things today will only make sense for a future people who understands the event a completely different way.
Think of the way that Holocaust history is impacting how we perceive today's events and how often that narrative and its elements figure into today's language on present issues. Today's news stories about Covid and 'refugee crises' will figure into future discussions in the same way that Holocaust concepts figure into ours today. At that future time, the things happening may or may not make sense. It depends on whether the establishment is attempting to modify the world order, or sustain it.
I can definitely see it. We know they planned 9/11 decades in advance. We know they planned covid decades in advance.
What worries me is the possibility it's somehow even bigger. 9/11 (and 11/9 and 1/6) and its many predictions are all wrapped up in weird jewish/masonic/etc. mystical symbolism. Was 9/11 a spell cast on society? If so, for what purpose? Is it just about controlling the transition into the age of aquarius, or is it something else?
I am not so sure that the "long game" is the sole cause of our clown-world. Yes, some are playing the long game, but many also understand their own life expectancy and would much rather see the fruition of their plans in their own life-time.
The primary sin here is pride, and these "elite" believe themselves to be god in their own world. The "chess" they are playing does have a decades long arc, but I believe they are merely reacting to events and steering things in a direction rather than actually causing them to happen. Just like on the battle-field, the goal is to win, but you need to be nimble and constantly re-adjusting strategy to achieve the desired outcome. They know they are older and are stepping closer to death every day, and would really desire reaching the apex of their desires sooner rather than later.
Also, most of the "elite" are not really that smart (even though they think of themselves as geniuses).
They think they are smart and above the common herd.
The World Economic Forum was created because Klaus Schwab and his slimy associates believe the "common folk", us, are so stupid we need to be guided and controlled by people like him.
Look at how easily sheep are led. They don't care about political history. Only bread and circuses. The past is easily rewritten as well. Holocaust, the erasure of classic economic liberalism, etc.
This theory is interesting, but seems wholly unnecessary.
Interesting. Probably why they insert Africans into so many historical shows such as the Anne Boleyn series and Bridgerton and others. In 100 years it will be "documented historical fact" that Good Queen Bess was a nigger and the aristocracy was always black.
Elites are thinking that far down the line; it is an illusion that they are responding to people's concerns today as though in real time....... We're cattle, and things are easier when we're pacified, or fighting the 'fights' they planned for us to fight decades ago.
No! This is totally incorrect, although I do understand why people think this. They are NOT playing 24D chess. They do not have shit figured decades before it happens. Absolutely not. The truth is the opposite of this.
They are only planning shit out 5 or 10 years down the road. Maybe 15 at the outside. You are telling me that the people that put Biden in power planned that? He was their #1 choice? No way.
The truth is that events SEEM alot more coordinated than they really are. That is because elites have evolved models through which they can efficiently manipulate commoners/workers to thrive.
Jews are the classic example of this, but it is not limited to jews. Why does the protocols of zion seem so accurate and prescient? Because jews are the same in every generation. We are talking about a few dozen genes that they have in common that cause then to have the same thoughts or analogous thoughts every generation. This seems to be a consciously coordinated plan but it isnt.
We discussed this before and I believe I used the example of a mumuration of starlings. They are not consciously implementing a plan — they are reacting moment to moment.
You are right about the livestock part. We are livestock. But we are smarter than cows. They are of course trying to eliminate the most troublesome members of the herd.
I don’t think thiese people see themselves as parasites. We dont see ourselves as parasitizing cows or chickens.
We are not looking at a plan. We are looking at a genetic recipe for behavior. They are not even conscious of it. It seems like good morals and values to censor gentiles/commoners that question them. They think they are putting down “hate”.
First, I just want to clarify that saying a hypothetical stopped me and caused me to consider it for a few days, is not the same as saying I endorse it. As you point out, the obvious weakness of this theory is that it seems to give to a very small group of people a degree of competence, intellect and power we intuitively believe is impossible to have.
I think the aspect of the theory that gave me 'pause' is that, approaching it charitably, it asks you to consider the possibility that your intuitions about the 'way things are' is possibly dead wrong, that you could be a 'brain in a vat' in a political sense and not even realize it because the simulation is so effective. It requires very abstract thinking. I'm not sure that, from a practical standpoint, we could even act as if this theory were true (even in the case where it was true). You just couldn't really motivate any other kind of action beside levelling the system with violence. This is because you'd be forced to acknowledge that that system, and those in control of it, had gotten so 'far ahead of you' that there would be no recourse to rules within that very system for your own liberation from it. You'd have to just level it and eliminate everyone with the appropriate power stake to have been involved engineering it.
So, no, I'm not endorsing it. It's more of an exploration of the theoretical virtue the theory has, if any. Does it cause us to think things that benefit us? If we believed it, would it help to explain something about the world better than other theories are capable of right now? Would it also cause us to make more accurate predictions if we believed this theory?
Sometimes assessing a theory is not about whether you think it is intuitively right or not, but rather about the success of that theory in terms of (a) explanatory power and (b) whether it causes you to make better predictions. I haven't had the theory in mind long enough to really assess that.
But I can continue to play devil's advocate here.
You are telling me that the people that put Biden in power planned that? He was their #1 choice?
Even without referring to the theory I proposed at all, I would still say it is likelier that Biden was intentional than that he was unintentional. For within the theory, we could explain Biden - and more importantly, the false perception that Biden was duly elected - as a scapegoat for the way our present will be interpreted for the future (generations). They will be able to say: "Biden was old, senile, incompetent. But he was elected. And look what he did!" Putting a jester into office could certainly have its advantages for the heads of a control system.
Suppose we accept your premise, that Biden was not intentional. He won a fair election in a representative system that was functioning more or less fairly. There are two consequences of this. If we assume that a controlling elite, with even the power to direct global moves for the next 10-15 years, must be a very competent and well-organized entity, then how do we explain a doofus like Biden getting through their system - basically 'hacking' it? This is especially true when the evidence for election tampering in 2020 was huge. So all of that tampering by the elites failed...how? Did it fail to select the right Democratic candidate? Well, no we can't say that. Because the system continued to tamper in favor of Biden. Since it is also true that rigging primaries is a smaller task than rigging the federal election, we'd have to explain how the elites failed to leverage the Democratic primaries to avoid Biden's nomination.
We are talking about a few dozen genes that they have in common that cause then to have the same thoughts or analogous thoughts every generation.
This is an extremely specious claim, and that's in all fairness.
We don't see ourselves as parasitizing cows or chickens.
We don't parasitize cows and chickens.
We are not looking at a plan. We are looking at a genetic recipe for behavior.
You use genetics like a suitcase concept for explanation. It is not critical enough; you pack everything into it.
How might you explain the specificity of this 'genetic recipe' to the Jewish population, at the same time as you'd also have to endorse the fact that this recipe is highly successful?
Given those two facts, you've got a problem. The environment proves it is successful, yet the pattern is dramatically well isolated - even in the face of a history of radical migration, exile, captivity, and diaspora across most of the known world.
It would be like saying the wings of a bird were remarkably more fit for the changing environment of the dinosaurs, so natural selection favored this trait massively. But instead of seeing near-ubiquitous winged-ness among birds, 98% of birds don't have wings, with just 2% of the population having wings. This doesn't make sense. Either it is favorable, or it is not. So you say that it is favored for reasons that aren't intrinsic to the organism, but relational - that is, it promotes social behaviors that are parasitic. And no environment could contain more than a certain threshold of parasites - it's a limited strategy.
This still doesn't do much work for us. In order for it to do work would require a kind of comprehensive determinism, i.e. that other human beings could not respond to the success of parasitic behavior by becoming parasitic themselves. There would necessarily be something preventing non-Jews, for example, from mere mimickry, despite the fact we know that humans possess sophisticated 'theory theories' for the behavior of others. And if parasitism was this successful, we'd expect the mimickers to be differentially successful, which then raises the question as to how this entire dynamic persists under an evolutionary theory - you'd basically be confirming an absolute abysmal worldview that actually contradicts Darwinism -- put another way, it would look like there was something else transcending biology that was 'holding' things situationally the way that they are between Jews and non-Jews.
Tell ya what, let's approach from a different angle. I think this molecular determinism of yours is totally inadequate for a theory of action (explaining human actions without underlying reasons for those actions). See if you can come up with something for the following:
Contradictory behaviors as alternatives. Life requires water. A human gets thirsty, and he is motivated to consume water. No obvious problem here for genetics (even though there is a finer-grained problem for genetics at the level of the actual experience of being thirsty). But here is a strange reality. I can choose not to consume water even when I am thirsty. In fact, I can choose against drinking water even to the point of self-harm.
More importantly, I can hold both behaviors mentally as alternatives and I can reason across the both of these, and in the end choose the alternative that is self-harming, citing the motivating reason as something moral even.
Can you give an explanation for this that fundamentally grounds the first (and the only real) cause in biomolecules?
Do you really make the decision to not drink water? what do you refer to when you say "you"?
It's your brain making the decision, a brain that is making the decision for two reasons.
The first is that your genes made your brain capable of coming to such a stare that it would make this decision. Without that potential courtesy of your genes, you would never make such a choice, since it would literally be outside your power to do so.
The second is that all of the environments and experiences within them up till this point has forced your brain to reach this specific point on the range of your genetic potential where it would decide to no longer compel the rest of your body to drink water.
But ultimately, your genes are what determine the manner in which your environmental experiences affect you, your actions, and your nature. You can expose two different sets of genetics to the same series of environmental experiences, and you'd still end up with two different outcomes, because of this. You can't teach a dog theoretical physics, but you also can't teach it to a human whose genetics and prior environmental experiences haven't been of a nature which would grant them the ability to be taught theoretical physics.
Everything you say, do, and are ultimately come down to your genes. Memes are secondary.
Also, when it comes to evolution, population numbers aren't the important part, the most essential priority is the lasting power of a gene or allele, which could be affected by population growth or representation, but they aren't the same thing.
There's a reason why the wolves are so often outnumbered by their prey, or why some species have less offspring, but are far greater in terms of lasting power.
Do you really make the decision to not drink water?
I think we could ask what the virtue of a theory is that holds we don't make the decision. I like Davidson's theory of action in this case. You might ask what the consequences of a theory are which holds that there are not irreducible persons, but brains making decisions. You'd probably find that civilization became impossible under such a theory.
decide
What is deciding under you theory?
your nature
Nature is a necessity; genetics are contingent. I'm not arguing that genetics aren't a primary biological causal feature of human bodies, but the human nature is not reducible to genes.
Everything you say, do, and are ultimately come down to your genes. Memes are secondary.
If memes are secondary, it is not possible to coherently make your first statement. All sense and reference are lost.
Also, when it comes to evolution, population numbers aren't the important part, the most essential priority is the lasting power of a gene or allele
Sure, but fitness, and therefore successful reproduction, is the measure of ability to last for an allele.
At the beginning of this comment, you seem to be making the point that a belief system does not need to be true to make your society successful. I concur. But does believing that elites are playing 27D chess help us? Or them? Does it make them appear more powerful than they really are?
If elites are indeed planning shit out 50 or 100 years ahead of time, we ARE fucked and there is no other recourse but to burn shit down. Or else accept being cattle. I think this is why so many people think that elites are lizard space aliens: no humans in my experience have his level of predictive ability or coordination to enact such a long term goal consistently without turning against each other and letting the cat out of the bag. Not even close.
Needless to say I don’t believe in lizard overlords from outerspace. Everything has a natural explanation. I suspect the reality of this elite tyranny and how it works is far more mundane than we tend to imagine. Not terribly coordinated in the conscious sense, and full of opposing factions.
...that Biden was not intentional. He won a fair election in a representative system that was functioning more or less fairly.
Whoa , hold up Kemosabe. I don’t think Biden was elected. I think leftist elites stole the election. I just dont think they planned to install Joe 5 or 10 years out. I think they are always trying to steal elections and they’ve gotten better at it through a number of methods. That just means they are professional thieves. It ended up being Joe Biden because he happened to suck the right dick at the right time. We will never know why it was Joe and not Kamala or Pocahantas. I think they just sucked the wrong dicks.
Do I think leftist elites are in large agreement that Joe was the best man to accomplish their agenda? No fuckin’ way. We can’t assume these people are of one mind. They are constantly jockeying for supremacy. We only see a monolithic facade but I assure you it’s not the case. Assume they fight at least as much as we do here.
This is an extremely specious claim
No, I believe that most of the genetic variation among humans is white noise and that a relatively small number of genes are under strong selection often because because they underpin competing economic models of behavior.
We don't parasitize cows and chickens.
Don’t we? We always complain that jews/elites are trearing us like livestock and that they are parasites. I think you are not looking at it from the POV of the cow.
How might you explain the specificity of this 'genetic recipe' to the Jewish population,
I can’t tell you exactly how it’s implemented. I’m not a neurologist. But it is as specific as niggers stealing bikes. Look at how specific nigger “dysfunction” is. A very large percentage of them will steal a bike, if given the opportunity. Were there bikes in Africa? No. They usually walk really slow when they are crossing in front of my car in the supermarket parking lot. They all do this. It seems oddly specific. How could they all have a gene for this behavior? They don’t. It’s situational. It is a circumstance analogous to some other behaviors that are natural to them.
I would say the behaviors are somewhat situational for jews but the motives are the same. The context is different in 21st century America than 20th century Russia, or 8th century Spain, but the dynamics of gentile host populations are similar enough for jewish strategy to translate well to many host societies.
you'd also have to endorse the fact that this recipe is highly successful?
I would agree that jewishness is a highly successful strategy, but I don’t endorse it as “progress” for the human race if progress is to be defined as some kind of transition consistent with the process of bacteria or insects evolving in to humans.
So you say that it is favored for reasons that aren't intrinsic to the organism, but relational - that is, it promotes social behaviors that are parasitic. And no environment could contain more than a certain threshold of parasites - it's a limited strategy.
Correct. It is a predator/prey model. Jews can only become so successful, or any group of parasitic elites, or other parasitic groups for that matter. The wing analogy is not a good one here, because the adaptation’s success depends upon the welfare of the host population.
that other human beings could not respond to the success of parasitic behavior by becoming parasitic themselves. There would necessarily be something preventing non-Jews, for example, from mere mimickry, despite the fact we know that humans possess sophisticated 'theory theories' for the behavior of others. And if parasitism was this successful, we'd expect the mimickers to be differentially successful,
Other populations can, to an extent. Some groups are going to be better inclined toward the parasitic strategy than others. We do in fact have an increasingly large number of mimickers, that have been provided some level of moral cover for their parasitism— “racial justice” etc, —and some are better at these behaviors than others.
You can grossly simplify all social behaviors into opportunistic or cooperative categories . We all engage in some opportunistic behaviors; we all have some genes that incline us toward opportunism in some circumstances. Some groups have a lot more opportunism than others. Cooperativists tend to be economically conservative, because a group of related cooperativists could only succeed as a community if they were also conserving.
Jews are cooperative among each other but opportunistic of their host societies, and not conserving at all, since they don’t create any wealth. Of course, they don’t see it that way— they feel like they earned their money as a lawyer protecting some gentile from another jewish lawyer.
Blacks are highly opportunistic but not at all coordinated. Same with latinos, muslims, feminists, etc. to a lesser extent. These are groups that are often opportunistic, but do not necessarily have a well evolved parasitic strategy like jews. I would say there are white elites, possibly heavily decended from the aristocracy, that may in fact have a more strongly evolved parasitic “game”, similar to jews. But I feel less confident about how that population might work. I do see that white elites and jews have repeatedly collaborated to exploit white commoners, and that seems to be what is happening now.
So what you have now is a highly efficient economic system that produced alot of prosperity for average white people because we evolved a high trust, conserving, cooperative society, which was infiltrated by the social parasites. Social parasites are turbo-charged on high trust societies. A population of high trust individuals are easy to trick and have the most resources to exploit. Jews could infiltrate the Congo, but what the fuck for?
Jew “recruit” other potential opportunists to create a multicultural coalition against the group that controls the cultural rules. These are the mimicks: women, blacks, foreigners, perverts— people that don’t want to follow the old recipe for success. Many of these individuals are in fact particularly genetically inclined to opportunism if not evolved specialized parasitism. Some are just average people trained in false premises that a society can support unlimited communist librarians and instagram whores on the backs of a tiny number of racist moralistic farmers and car mechanics.
which then raises the question as to how this entire dynamic persists under an evolutionary theory - you'd basically be confirming an absolute abysmal worldview that actually contradicts Darwinism
Why? Could you elaborate on why you think this contradicts evolution?
I’m not saying that none of this strategy is transmitted culturally. Jews’ specific form of opportunism is to parasitize through cultural disinformation— money, religion, history, law. So they are using a cultural medium to aggregate their political coalition, but their behavior is still a genetic strategy and their allies will also be genetically predisposed to opportunistic behaviors, albeit a different set of them in some cases, eg. blacks.
I can choose against drinking water even to the point of self-harm.
I don’t want to go too far in depth with this topic but there’s a lot to say on it. Traits for self-abnegation and self-sacrifice can be very useful for survival, both from the POV of individual interests and group interests (e.g kin selection). Personalities with low self discipline and high pleasure seeking, impulsive behaviors may be highly inefficient in times of scarcity. Are tests of will really useless? Perhaps they are the by-products of a more efficient behavioral trait which emphasizes conservation of resources or self sacrifice?
you seem to be making the point that a belief system does not need to be true to make your society successful
I was approaching from the pragmatist position, where there wouldn't be such a contrast as this one you've made. Rather, that theory of truth says, basically, that what is true is what it is most meritorious to believe, or on other formulations: what is true is what it is least justifiable for you to reject. There is no talk here of true and false in the realist sense, but is instead a response to the intractability of describing what truth is. Instead we just say truth is what truth does.
I'm also not committed to pragmatism (I'm a realist), but I find it incredibly useful for 'stepping outside oneself' and considering theories as objectively as possible.
Everything has a natural explanation.
No. An unprovable and unfalsifiable claim.
Not terribly coordinated in the conscious sense, and full of opposing factions.
The degree to which the control has become more monolithic has gained with time, as allies became inserted into higher positions of power globally, thus permitting greater and greater consolidation of the core of power, and increasing numbers of 'rungs' in the hierarchy (concealing the core more effectively).
There is a very conscious and collective 'final cause' in the Jewish movement, a view for the destiny of the world, about which they tend to be very clear. That there is a 'conscious' goal here is not even a question I consider being on the table. The question of opposition is more interesting. Within the Jewish community itself, which is distributed (I don't mean only current 'Israelites'), I do not think there is any real opposition to global Zionism. There have been marginal factions of Jews that have popped up over time which splinter off from the 'main body'. I'm thinking here of groups like the Karaites. But in terms of global Zionism, I believe they benefit from creating the impression of opposing factions. If you aren't going to manipulate your enemy with sheer force, you require doing it psychologically (to some degree), and Hegelian synthetic means are what they use. How useful and cunning it would be for your identity to be divided in the perception of your enemies, as between two groups who are mutually opposed. More than anything, the Jew has mastered hiding, or at least making it remarkably difficult for people who are alarmed to point to something material as evidence to support their anxiety. The Jew can attack from these hiding places precisely because there is not 'the one thing' like a snake in the grass - they are divided across entities that appear to be contradictory to one another. That's the trick, and it's stupefying how effective it is.
I just don't think they planned to install Joe 5 or 10 years out.
I agree, or at least I wouldn't wager money on the opposite. It might be that the theory I proposed just wasn't clearly articulated/elaborated enough. I didn't mean to say that every single event is planned ahead of time, but something more like 'broad strokes', general initiatives. The pieces that are ultimately used are decided much more flexibly/fluidly and on smaller timescales.
In terms of the theory I proposed, I would say it's best to think of it as an idealization. Say there is a point in time, X, some number of decades prior to the present, P. There is a future time, Y, the same number of decades after P. The suggestion would not be that, say, five centuries of 'future history' is already plotted out. Instead, it's better to think of things in terms of investments. Imagine X pertained to the early 1940s, when Zionist plans for the creation of Israel were at work, and the use of Holocaust rhetoric might first have started to be formulated.
We might think of this fabrication of a current event as an investment. The Jews in power are not imagining that there is some absolutely concrete set of events or consequences that will fall out of this investment, only the general 'form' of the way it will impact culture and provide future returns. At any P, the Jews in power are using their control of media to craft a 'history of the present' which equals the 'future past'. Broad strokes of this are probably more certain than particulars. For example, that Biden was the nominated Democrat was probably not planned ten years beforehand, but we could imagine that the general 'form' of the 'conservative outsider' wins 2016 followed by the reactive swing back leftward in 2020 was the investment that had been planned. I don't think this is unreasonable.
I'm not really interested at this very moment to continue arguing the genetic point. I'd begun to, but I realized that it was too involved. I pictured many more text walls being exchanged.
I'll just say that your explanation is reasonable. I'm not denying that it is reasonable, and with some set of assumptions accepted ahead of time, it looks like the best explanation. But these Darwinian modes of explanation are always a 'just is' sort of theorizing. They're unfalsifiable and wherever you find a feature, that feature is always adaptive for survival. Of course. It's here, featuring in whatever organism we're referring to, so obviously it has a survival purpose.
Take the Jewish tendency for non-assimilation. Is that explainable by genetics? Self-isolation seems contrary to the impulse to spread one's genes, if replication is really what it is about. The best way for any allele to survive is to become a part of the largest successful population that it can. So we find Jews, who are rabidly averse to assimilation and we say, oh, well when some alleles co-occur in some organisms, it is the group of alleles that now 'wants' to replicate, as if these clusters no co-operate with one another: their effects taken together start to cause the organism that possesses them to guard this cluster carefully via their sexual exclusivity. So replication imperative starts to look like only breeding with those as similar to you as possible. This becomes more dangerous the smaller the population. So now we have to look at the Jewish situation and say, "Of course it was beneficial to them because of their small numbers and because of their strategy." But, is this not circular? Have we not said that the genes were what caused the very circumstances, then, that made those very genes beneficial?
I don’t want to go too far in depth with this topic but there’s a lot to say on it.
Here is an example of what I was saying before (referring to the paragraph of yours which followed this quoted sentence). You can make anything follow a rule. If the rule is survival (more simply: an explanation for being here today, as we observe the world), I can always make any feature fit that rule. Being able to test one's will is useful, because...sometimes circumstances make different alternatives better. A population with will-testers will be better suited for surviving than a population without will-testers.
I could do the same thing, however, with a population that had no will-testers. There is no reason at all to suppose that having qualia (something that it 'is like' to experience one's deliberative process, the 'what it is like' to feel thirst and possibly test one's will against satisfying it) is favored by genetics. You could think of a genome like a string of instructions in a computer program. Is it better if a computer can have an irreducible experience (qualia) of what it's like to follow its instructions? Or is it better for the computer's survival if it just follows the instructions. Put another way, all learning and deliberation could be purely psychological and not conscious. Here, by 'psychological', I mean a deterministic neuronal process with no conscious experience. For example, we might call the reflex to move one's hand away from a hot stove a kind of psychological learning. But how could genes ever transcend that level of learning/behavior? Shouldn't it all be psychological learning?
Why would genetics favor individual units (humans) becoming the appropriate test level? The alternative would be that each human individual represented a strategy. No huge resources spent food/nutrition/nurturance required for brains capable of deliberation. Just let each person be an 'all in' strategy. If they die, they die. That would actually favor more efficient removal of bad strategies from the population!
Why are things not playing out like an AI-generated system of all-in strategies? The population level would benefit if humans were more deterministic. There ought not be decision-making processes. You could think of human beings like computers designed by nature. No computer does a better job if it deliberates on its instructions. Whether my computer defied my clicking the mouse, and if this would be a good thing, is not a question we ask because it is silly.
The more you try to explain our mindedness, reasoning and deliberation (together with the futility of trying to explain them on a purely neurological basis), the more you realize it is outside the scope of genes to account for.
I think you are not looking at it from the POV of the cow.
This is just anthropomorphizing the cow. I don't deny the cow can apprehend suffering. But I very much doubt if the cow perceives it is parasitized.
The relationship between farmers and livestock - if humane - is commensal. These species would not exist in the wild. They'd be wiped out. They trade many benefits for the caveat that their life has a determined endpoint: slaughter. The tradeoff is quite great though. They are fed, kept healthy, protected from natural threats. The idea is basically to give them the happiest life possible because that promotes the best product for human consumption.
They'd face worse realities in the wild. Of course, I'm not arguing the cow or the chicken perceives any of this. But the relationship is not parasitic. A parasitic relationship assumes that the host is independently successful, hence the parasite which seeks to leech from that existing foundation.
Would like to see that post for myself. But, honestly, I'm sort of surprised this is revelatory to folks. I'm far from a great intellect and I've always just sort of assumed that everyone else also recognized The Parasites were working from a plan and their only concern as it relates to us is to keep things tamped down just enough that we don't hang their asses.
[ - ] CHIRO [op] 1 point 1.9 yearsMay 18, 2022 00:19:39 ago (+1/-0)
This had more to do than with things going according to plan. We always think the plan applies to our present moment. The past was lied about to lead to things happening now. This theory says you are never in the now. The things happening now are for a future generation; the idea your government is even responding to you, in this present moment, is the bias. This is why elections are fraudulent. News stories report insanity. It's just creating a 'future past'.
Yeah so basically you finally understand that “the victors write history” and the events of the present are tomorrow’s history. Hardly a novel concept.
I was worried that some people might interpret the significance this way. It's worse. Most of the time when we discuss historical manipulation, there is still a 'presentist bias'. In other words, we still think the past false history was 'for us' or 'for today'. It was all a plan for something happening today.
This idea is attacking that bias. It is saying that it wasn't even for today. You are so insignificant that your reality was programmed years ago, and the things you think are happening today are actually for a future generation. You are not even participating in what you think is present history. You're participating in a 'present past'. This is why the news reporting seems so outlandish. It's not about informing anybody today. It's about establishing a past for the future.
Ok I see the distinction. It is an interesting angle and the theory has a lot of merit. On the other hand I contend that the manipulation we are experiencing still operates for a present purpose, being the destruction of the old order to create the new order, but that in no way delegitimizes the theory you have put forth. A present purpose and future purpose are not contradictory.
[ - ] beece 1 point 1.9 yearsMay 17, 2022 22:56:20 ago (+1/-0)*
What the OP describes is exactly what occurred to get the US into WW1. "They" (a consortium of control freaks, Milner, Rhodes, Rothschild) were planning for the war and having news papers prepare people for it starting in the late 1800s. People in the US were angry beyond believe at this sudden "betrayal" of our leaders. They rioted and there were deaths in the riots.
History was falsified so that what people believe occurred in WW1 today in 2022 isn't what really happened, but if you dig in today you can still get the truth. In 100 years into the future, maybe not. What we believe has been falsified in many, many layers.
Fascinating really. Those who want to overthrow those that rule us would be wise to look into how they are controlling everyone's minds, and use that as the pushback location to start on.
No fucking way. These jew demons may care slightly about their race surviving, but this is all about them and their lives. They also must know how shooty their best laid plans play out in a decade or two. I dont buy it. No way. They want money and power for them and their immediate successors. They aren't that ideological and deep. No way.
[ + ] niggersarenothuman
[ - ] niggersarenothuman 1 point 1.9 yearsMay 29, 2022 22:29:32 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] SecretHitler
[ - ] SecretHitler 19 points 1.9 yearsMay 17, 2022 15:46:05 ago (+19/-0)
I think organizing around this is just as important and doesn't carry the same risk and challenges of something like glowing RWDS for example. Asha Logos is someone who is already doing this for ancient history for example.
This isn't side gig work though. We need people who dedicate their lives to these tasks and do it right.
[ + ] taoV
[ - ] taoV 4 points 1.9 yearsMay 17, 2022 17:36:11 ago (+4/-0)
[ + ] SecretHitler
[ - ] SecretHitler 4 points 1.9 yearsMay 17, 2022 18:03:10 ago (+4/-0)
Not sure I'm on board with time capsules but I wouldn't oppose a group who thought they were a good idea.
[ + ] MichaelStewart
[ - ] MichaelStewart 2 points 1.9 yearsMay 17, 2022 19:51:30 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] SecretHitler
[ - ] SecretHitler 4 points 1.9 yearsMay 17, 2022 20:23:28 ago (+4/-0)
[ + ] pshawman
[ - ] pshawman 4 points 1.9 yearsMay 17, 2022 20:42:40 ago (+4/-0)
https://encyclosphere.org/
[ + ] SecretHitler
[ - ] SecretHitler 0 points 1.9 yearsMay 18, 2022 01:29:21 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Trumpman1488
[ - ] Trumpman1488 -1 points 1.9 yearsMay 18, 2022 04:57:22 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] yesiknow
[ - ] yesiknow 3 points 1.9 yearsMay 17, 2022 19:22:12 ago (+3/-0)
You need permanent ink and rag paper.
[ + ] SecretHitler
[ - ] SecretHitler 2 points 1.9 yearsMay 17, 2022 20:24:49 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] Autismo
[ - ] Autismo 3 points 1.9 yearsMay 17, 2022 20:30:55 ago (+3/-0)
You should do it since NEET
[ + ] SecretHitler
[ - ] SecretHitler 0 points 1.9 yearsMay 18, 2022 01:26:17 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] lord_nougat
[ - ] lord_nougat 8 points 1.9 yearsMay 17, 2022 16:17:46 ago (+8/-0)
[ + ] Clubberlang
[ - ] Clubberlang 4 points 1.9 yearsMay 17, 2022 21:08:22 ago (+4/-0)
[ + ] lord_nougat
[ - ] lord_nougat 1 point 1.9 yearsMay 17, 2022 22:01:27 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] paul_neri
[ - ] paul_neri -1 points 1.9 yearsMay 18, 2022 03:51:45 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] Grospoliner
[ - ] Grospoliner 1 point 1.9 yearsMay 18, 2022 00:38:43 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] lord_nougat
[ - ] lord_nougat 0 points 1.9 yearsMay 18, 2022 00:49:30 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] rip_torn
[ - ] rip_torn 5 points 1.9 yearsMay 17, 2022 18:05:05 ago (+5/-0)
I enjoy these kind of illuminations because when you see the world this way everything suddenly makes sense. Thus, seeing the current chaos through this lens makes the chaos understandable.
Yes.
[ + ] Rambone
[ - ] Rambone 4 points 1.9 yearsMay 17, 2022 19:20:59 ago (+4/-0)
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO [op] 2 points 1.9 yearsMay 18, 2022 00:30:08 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] Thyhorrorcosmic103
[ - ] Thyhorrorcosmic103 4 points 1.9 yearsMay 17, 2022 19:20:22 ago (+4/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 1.9 yearsMay 18, 2022 12:27:25 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] dontknowwhatiwant
[ - ] dontknowwhatiwant 3 points 1.9 yearsMay 17, 2022 20:07:58 ago (+3/-0)
This is fascinating and on point I believe.
We here are in the very few who understand at least an inkling of the lies told throughout history and on the massive Mockingbird scale of today.
Thank you,
Memento Vivere
[ + ] dontknowwhatiwant
[ - ] dontknowwhatiwant 4 points 1.9 yearsMay 17, 2022 20:11:46 ago (+5/-1)
It would not surprise me one of two things: some type of device/person to see into future timelines and/or this is all a simulation with the outcome already known.
Yeah, yeah, I know. Tin foil hat.
The Simpson's is what I have a problem with. Too many predictions. Too many co-incidences.
[ + ] dontknowwhatiwant
[ - ] dontknowwhatiwant 4 points 1.9 yearsMay 17, 2022 20:13:41 ago (+4/-0)
[ + ] Hoobeejoo
[ - ] Hoobeejoo 4 points 1.9 yearsMay 17, 2022 21:44:54 ago (+4/-0)
Consume Product. Get excited for next product!!
https://consumeproduct.win/
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO [op] 4 points 1.9 yearsMay 18, 2022 00:28:23 ago (+4/-0)*
You're very welcome. I read a good deal into the original post, elaborated on it heavily; the product of not being able to get it off one's mind for an entire day.
[ + ] texasblood
[ - ] texasblood 3 points 1.9 yearsMay 17, 2022 19:09:21 ago (+3/-0)
It wasn't referencing the towers at all.
The obama firestorm has only quietly gained speed since.
MKUltra has been perfected
[ + ] Peleg
[ - ] Peleg 3 points 1.9 yearsMay 17, 2022 18:56:45 ago (+3/-0)
Yep. I do believe that you are on the right path.
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO [op] 1 point 1.9 yearsMay 18, 2022 00:13:06 ago (+1/-0)*
Think of the way that Holocaust history is impacting how we perceive today's events and how often that narrative and its elements figure into today's language on present issues. Today's news stories about Covid and 'refugee crises' will figure into future discussions in the same way that Holocaust concepts figure into ours today. At that future time, the things happening may or may not make sense. It depends on whether the establishment is attempting to modify the world order, or sustain it.
[ + ] NaturalSelectionistWorker
[ - ] NaturalSelectionistWorker 3 points 1.9 yearsMay 17, 2022 18:11:10 ago (+3/-0)
What worries me is the possibility it's somehow even bigger. 9/11 (and 11/9 and 1/6) and its many predictions are all wrapped up in weird jewish/masonic/etc. mystical symbolism. Was 9/11 a spell cast on society? If so, for what purpose? Is it just about controlling the transition into the age of aquarius, or is it something else?
[ + ] Greatmuta
[ - ] Greatmuta 3 points 1.9 yearsMay 17, 2022 17:50:59 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] AugustineOfHippo2
[ - ] AugustineOfHippo2 3 points 1.9 yearsMay 17, 2022 17:38:21 ago (+3/-0)
The primary sin here is pride, and these "elite" believe themselves to be god in their own world. The "chess" they are playing does have a decades long arc, but I believe they are merely reacting to events and steering things in a direction rather than actually causing them to happen. Just like on the battle-field, the goal is to win, but you need to be nimble and constantly re-adjusting strategy to achieve the desired outcome. They know they are older and are stepping closer to death every day, and would really desire reaching the apex of their desires sooner rather than later.
Also, most of the "elite" are not really that smart (even though they think of themselves as geniuses).
[ + ] SecretHitler
[ - ] SecretHitler 3 points 1.9 yearsMay 17, 2022 18:01:12 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] Stonkmar
[ - ] Stonkmar 3 points 1.9 yearsMay 17, 2022 19:12:16 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] dulcima
[ - ] dulcima 2 points 1.9 yearsMay 17, 2022 22:17:43 ago (+2/-0)
The World Economic Forum was created because Klaus Schwab and his slimy associates believe the "common folk", us, are so stupid we need to be guided and controlled by people like him.
[ + ] TheYiddler
[ - ] TheYiddler 2 points 1.9 yearsMay 18, 2022 00:01:22 ago (+2/-0)
This theory is interesting, but seems wholly unnecessary.
[ + ] dulcima
[ - ] dulcima 2 points 1.9 yearsMay 17, 2022 22:05:41 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO [op] 1 point 1.9 yearsMay 18, 2022 00:20:42 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 1 point 1.9 yearsMay 18, 2022 10:29:39 ago (+2/-1)
No! This is totally incorrect, although I do understand why people think this. They are NOT playing 24D chess. They do not have shit figured decades before it happens. Absolutely not. The truth is the opposite of this.
They are only planning shit out 5 or 10 years down the road. Maybe 15 at the outside. You are telling me that the people that put Biden in power planned that? He was their #1 choice? No way.
The truth is that events SEEM alot more coordinated than they really are. That is because elites have evolved models through which they can efficiently manipulate commoners/workers to thrive.
Jews are the classic example of this, but it is not limited to jews. Why does the protocols of zion seem so accurate and prescient? Because jews are the same in every generation. We are talking about a few dozen genes that they have in common that cause then to have the same thoughts or analogous thoughts every generation. This seems to be a consciously coordinated plan but it isnt.
We discussed this before and I believe I used the example of a mumuration of starlings. They are not consciously implementing a plan — they are reacting moment to moment.
You are right about the livestock part. We are livestock. But we are smarter than cows. They are of course trying to eliminate the most troublesome members of the herd.
I don’t think thiese people see themselves as parasites. We dont see ourselves as parasitizing cows or chickens.
We are not looking at a plan. We are looking at a genetic recipe for behavior. They are not even conscious of it. It seems like good morals and values to censor gentiles/commoners that question them. They think they are putting down “hate”.
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO [op] 0 points 1.9 yearsMay 18, 2022 12:12:45 ago (+0/-0)*
I think the aspect of the theory that gave me 'pause' is that, approaching it charitably, it asks you to consider the possibility that your intuitions about the 'way things are' is possibly dead wrong, that you could be a 'brain in a vat' in a political sense and not even realize it because the simulation is so effective. It requires very abstract thinking. I'm not sure that, from a practical standpoint, we could even act as if this theory were true (even in the case where it was true). You just couldn't really motivate any other kind of action beside levelling the system with violence. This is because you'd be forced to acknowledge that that system, and those in control of it, had gotten so 'far ahead of you' that there would be no recourse to rules within that very system for your own liberation from it. You'd have to just level it and eliminate everyone with the appropriate power stake to have been involved engineering it.
So, no, I'm not endorsing it. It's more of an exploration of the theoretical virtue the theory has, if any. Does it cause us to think things that benefit us? If we believed it, would it help to explain something about the world better than other theories are capable of right now? Would it also cause us to make more accurate predictions if we believed this theory?
Sometimes assessing a theory is not about whether you think it is intuitively right or not, but rather about the success of that theory in terms of (a) explanatory power and (b) whether it causes you to make better predictions. I haven't had the theory in mind long enough to really assess that.
But I can continue to play devil's advocate here.
Even without referring to the theory I proposed at all, I would still say it is likelier that Biden was intentional than that he was unintentional. For within the theory, we could explain Biden - and more importantly, the false perception that Biden was duly elected - as a scapegoat for the way our present will be interpreted for the future (generations). They will be able to say: "Biden was old, senile, incompetent. But he was elected. And look what he did!" Putting a jester into office could certainly have its advantages for the heads of a control system.
Suppose we accept your premise, that Biden was not intentional. He won a fair election in a representative system that was functioning more or less fairly. There are two consequences of this. If we assume that a controlling elite, with even the power to direct global moves for the next 10-15 years, must be a very competent and well-organized entity, then how do we explain a doofus like Biden getting through their system - basically 'hacking' it? This is especially true when the evidence for election tampering in 2020 was huge. So all of that tampering by the elites failed...how? Did it fail to select the right Democratic candidate? Well, no we can't say that. Because the system continued to tamper in favor of Biden. Since it is also true that rigging primaries is a smaller task than rigging the federal election, we'd have to explain how the elites failed to leverage the Democratic primaries to avoid Biden's nomination.
This is an extremely specious claim, and that's in all fairness.
We don't parasitize cows and chickens.
You use genetics like a suitcase concept for explanation. It is not critical enough; you pack everything into it.
How might you explain the specificity of this 'genetic recipe' to the Jewish population, at the same time as you'd also have to endorse the fact that this recipe is highly successful?
Given those two facts, you've got a problem. The environment proves it is successful, yet the pattern is dramatically well isolated - even in the face of a history of radical migration, exile, captivity, and diaspora across most of the known world.
It would be like saying the wings of a bird were remarkably more fit for the changing environment of the dinosaurs, so natural selection favored this trait massively. But instead of seeing near-ubiquitous winged-ness among birds, 98% of birds don't have wings, with just 2% of the population having wings. This doesn't make sense. Either it is favorable, or it is not. So you say that it is favored for reasons that aren't intrinsic to the organism, but relational - that is, it promotes social behaviors that are parasitic. And no environment could contain more than a certain threshold of parasites - it's a limited strategy.
This still doesn't do much work for us. In order for it to do work would require a kind of comprehensive determinism, i.e. that other human beings could not respond to the success of parasitic behavior by becoming parasitic themselves. There would necessarily be something preventing non-Jews, for example, from mere mimickry, despite the fact we know that humans possess sophisticated 'theory theories' for the behavior of others. And if parasitism was this successful, we'd expect the mimickers to be differentially successful, which then raises the question as to how this entire dynamic persists under an evolutionary theory - you'd basically be confirming an absolute abysmal worldview that actually contradicts Darwinism -- put another way, it would look like there was something else transcending biology that was 'holding' things situationally the way that they are between Jews and non-Jews.
Tell ya what, let's approach from a different angle. I think this molecular determinism of yours is totally inadequate for a theory of action (explaining human actions without underlying reasons for those actions). See if you can come up with something for the following:
Contradictory behaviors as alternatives. Life requires water. A human gets thirsty, and he is motivated to consume water. No obvious problem here for genetics (even though there is a finer-grained problem for genetics at the level of the actual experience of being thirsty). But here is a strange reality. I can choose not to consume water even when I am thirsty. In fact, I can choose against drinking water even to the point of self-harm.
More importantly, I can hold both behaviors mentally as alternatives and I can reason across the both of these, and in the end choose the alternative that is self-harming, citing the motivating reason as something moral even.
Can you give an explanation for this that fundamentally grounds the first (and the only real) cause in biomolecules?
[ + ] Paradoxical003
[ - ] Paradoxical003 0 points 1.9 yearsMay 18, 2022 14:43:35 ago (+0/-0)
It's your brain making the decision, a brain that is making the decision for two reasons.
The first is that your genes made your brain capable of coming to such a stare that it would make this decision.
Without that potential courtesy of your genes, you would never make such a choice, since it would literally be outside your power to do so.
The second is that all of the environments and experiences within them up till this point has forced your brain to reach this specific point on the range of your genetic potential where it would decide to no longer compel the rest of your body to drink water.
But ultimately, your genes are what determine the manner in which your environmental experiences affect you, your actions, and your nature.
You can expose two different sets of genetics to the same series of environmental experiences, and you'd still end up with two different outcomes, because of this. You can't teach a dog theoretical physics, but you also can't teach it to a human whose genetics and prior environmental experiences haven't been of a nature which would grant them the ability to be taught theoretical physics.
Everything you say, do, and are ultimately come down to your genes. Memes are secondary.
Also, when it comes to evolution, population numbers aren't the important part, the most essential priority is the lasting power of a gene or allele, which could be affected by population growth or representation, but they aren't the same thing.
There's a reason why the wolves are so often outnumbered by their prey, or why some species have less offspring, but are far greater in terms of lasting power.
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO [op] 0 points 1.9 yearsMay 18, 2022 15:53:21 ago (+0/-0)
I think we could ask what the virtue of a theory is that holds we don't make the decision. I like Davidson's theory of action in this case. You might ask what the consequences of a theory are which holds that there are not irreducible persons, but brains making decisions. You'd probably find that civilization became impossible under such a theory.
What is deciding under you theory?
Nature is a necessity; genetics are contingent. I'm not arguing that genetics aren't a primary biological causal feature of human bodies, but the human nature is not reducible to genes.
If memes are secondary, it is not possible to coherently make your first statement. All sense and reference are lost.
Sure, but fitness, and therefore successful reproduction, is the measure of ability to last for an allele.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 1.9 yearsMay 18, 2022 17:11:54 ago (+1/-1)*
If elites are indeed planning shit out 50 or 100 years ahead of time, we ARE fucked and there is no other recourse but to burn shit down. Or else accept being cattle. I think this is why so many people think that elites are lizard space aliens: no humans in my experience have his level of predictive ability or coordination to enact such a long term goal consistently without turning against each other and letting the cat out of the bag. Not even close.
Needless to say I don’t believe in lizard overlords from outerspace. Everything has a natural explanation. I suspect the reality of this elite tyranny and how it works is far more mundane than we tend to imagine. Not terribly coordinated in the conscious sense, and full of opposing factions.
Whoa , hold up Kemosabe. I don’t think Biden was elected. I think leftist elites stole the election. I just dont think they planned to install Joe 5 or 10 years out. I think they are always trying to steal elections and they’ve gotten better at it through a number of methods. That just means they are professional thieves. It ended up being Joe Biden because he happened to suck the right dick at the right time. We will never know why it was Joe and not Kamala or Pocahantas. I think they just sucked the wrong dicks.
Do I think leftist elites are in large agreement that Joe was the best man to accomplish their agenda? No fuckin’ way. We can’t assume these people are of one mind. They are constantly jockeying for supremacy. We only see a monolithic facade but I assure you it’s not the case. Assume they fight at least as much as we do here.
No, I believe that most of the genetic variation among humans is white noise and that a relatively small number of genes are under strong selection often because because they underpin competing economic models of behavior.
Don’t we? We always complain that jews/elites are trearing us like livestock and that they are parasites. I think you are not looking at it from the POV of the cow.
I can’t tell you exactly how it’s implemented. I’m not a neurologist. But it is as specific as niggers stealing bikes. Look at how specific nigger “dysfunction” is. A very large percentage of them will steal a bike, if given the opportunity. Were there bikes in Africa? No. They usually walk really slow when they are crossing in front of my car in the supermarket parking lot. They all do this. It seems oddly specific. How could they all have a gene for this behavior? They don’t. It’s situational. It is a circumstance analogous to some other behaviors that are natural to them.
I would say the behaviors are somewhat situational for jews but the motives are the same. The context is different in 21st century America than 20th century Russia, or 8th century Spain, but the dynamics of gentile host populations are similar enough for jewish strategy to translate well to many host societies.
Correct. It is a predator/prey model. Jews can only become so successful, or any group of parasitic elites, or other parasitic groups for that matter. The wing analogy is not a good one here, because the adaptation’s success depends upon the welfare of the host population.
Other populations can, to an extent. Some groups are going to be better inclined toward the parasitic strategy than others. We do in fact have an increasingly large number of mimickers, that have been provided some level of moral cover for their parasitism— “racial justice” etc, —and some are better at these behaviors than others.
You can grossly simplify all social behaviors into opportunistic or cooperative categories . We all engage in some opportunistic behaviors; we all have some genes that incline us toward opportunism in some circumstances. Some groups have a lot more opportunism than others. Cooperativists tend to be economically conservative, because a group of related cooperativists could only succeed as a community if they were also conserving.
Jews are cooperative among each other but opportunistic of their host societies, and not conserving at all, since they don’t create any wealth. Of course, they don’t see it that way— they feel like they earned their money as a lawyer protecting some gentile from another jewish lawyer.
Blacks are highly opportunistic but not at all coordinated. Same with latinos, muslims, feminists, etc. to a lesser extent. These are groups that are often opportunistic, but do not necessarily have a well evolved parasitic strategy like jews. I would say there are white elites, possibly heavily decended from the aristocracy, that may in fact have a more strongly evolved parasitic “game”, similar to jews. But I feel less confident about how that population might work. I do see that white elites and jews have repeatedly collaborated to exploit white commoners, and that seems to be what is happening now.
So what you have now is a highly efficient economic system that produced alot of prosperity for average white people because we evolved a high trust, conserving, cooperative society, which was infiltrated by the social parasites. Social parasites are turbo-charged on high trust societies. A population of high trust individuals are easy to trick and have the most resources to exploit. Jews could infiltrate the Congo, but what the fuck for?
Jew “recruit” other potential opportunists to create a multicultural coalition against the group that controls the cultural rules. These are the mimicks: women, blacks, foreigners, perverts— people that don’t want to follow the old recipe for success. Many of these individuals are in fact particularly genetically inclined to opportunism if not evolved specialized parasitism. Some are just average people trained in false premises that a society can support unlimited communist librarians and instagram whores on the backs of a tiny number of racist moralistic farmers and car mechanics.
Why? Could you elaborate on why you think this contradicts evolution?
I’m not saying that none of this strategy is transmitted culturally. Jews’ specific form of opportunism is to parasitize through cultural disinformation— money, religion, history, law. So they are using a cultural medium to aggregate their political coalition, but their behavior is still a genetic strategy and their allies will also be genetically predisposed to opportunistic behaviors, albeit a different set of them in some cases, eg. blacks.
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO [op] 0 points 1.9 yearsMay 19, 2022 13:00:35 ago (+0/-0)*
I was approaching from the pragmatist position, where there wouldn't be such a contrast as this one you've made. Rather, that theory of truth says, basically, that what is true is what it is most meritorious to believe, or on other formulations: what is true is what it is least justifiable for you to reject. There is no talk here of true and false in the realist sense, but is instead a response to the intractability of describing what truth is. Instead we just say truth is what truth does.
I'm also not committed to pragmatism (I'm a realist), but I find it incredibly useful for 'stepping outside oneself' and considering theories as objectively as possible.
No. An unprovable and unfalsifiable claim.
The degree to which the control has become more monolithic has gained with time, as allies became inserted into higher positions of power globally, thus permitting greater and greater consolidation of the core of power, and increasing numbers of 'rungs' in the hierarchy (concealing the core more effectively).
There is a very conscious and collective 'final cause' in the Jewish movement, a view for the destiny of the world, about which they tend to be very clear. That there is a 'conscious' goal here is not even a question I consider being on the table. The question of opposition is more interesting. Within the Jewish community itself, which is distributed (I don't mean only current 'Israelites'), I do not think there is any real opposition to global Zionism. There have been marginal factions of Jews that have popped up over time which splinter off from the 'main body'. I'm thinking here of groups like the Karaites. But in terms of global Zionism, I believe they benefit from creating the impression of opposing factions. If you aren't going to manipulate your enemy with sheer force, you require doing it psychologically (to some degree), and Hegelian synthetic means are what they use. How useful and cunning it would be for your identity to be divided in the perception of your enemies, as between two groups who are mutually opposed. More than anything, the Jew has mastered hiding, or at least making it remarkably difficult for people who are alarmed to point to something material as evidence to support their anxiety. The Jew can attack from these hiding places precisely because there is not 'the one thing' like a snake in the grass - they are divided across entities that appear to be contradictory to one another. That's the trick, and it's stupefying how effective it is.
I agree, or at least I wouldn't wager money on the opposite. It might be that the theory I proposed just wasn't clearly articulated/elaborated enough. I didn't mean to say that every single event is planned ahead of time, but something more like 'broad strokes', general initiatives. The pieces that are ultimately used are decided much more flexibly/fluidly and on smaller timescales.
In terms of the theory I proposed, I would say it's best to think of it as an idealization. Say there is a point in time, X, some number of decades prior to the present, P. There is a future time, Y, the same number of decades after P. The suggestion would not be that, say, five centuries of 'future history' is already plotted out. Instead, it's better to think of things in terms of investments. Imagine X pertained to the early 1940s, when Zionist plans for the creation of Israel were at work, and the use of Holocaust rhetoric might first have started to be formulated.
We might think of this fabrication of a current event as an investment. The Jews in power are not imagining that there is some absolutely concrete set of events or consequences that will fall out of this investment, only the general 'form' of the way it will impact culture and provide future returns. At any P, the Jews in power are using their control of media to craft a 'history of the present' which equals the 'future past'. Broad strokes of this are probably more certain than particulars. For example, that Biden was the nominated Democrat was probably not planned ten years beforehand, but we could imagine that the general 'form' of the 'conservative outsider' wins 2016 followed by the reactive swing back leftward in 2020 was the investment that had been planned. I don't think this is unreasonable.
I'm not really interested at this very moment to continue arguing the genetic point. I'd begun to, but I realized that it was too involved. I pictured many more text walls being exchanged.
I'll just say that your explanation is reasonable. I'm not denying that it is reasonable, and with some set of assumptions accepted ahead of time, it looks like the best explanation. But these Darwinian modes of explanation are always a 'just is' sort of theorizing. They're unfalsifiable and wherever you find a feature, that feature is always adaptive for survival. Of course. It's here, featuring in whatever organism we're referring to, so obviously it has a survival purpose.
Take the Jewish tendency for non-assimilation. Is that explainable by genetics? Self-isolation seems contrary to the impulse to spread one's genes, if replication is really what it is about. The best way for any allele to survive is to become a part of the largest successful population that it can. So we find Jews, who are rabidly averse to assimilation and we say, oh, well when some alleles co-occur in some organisms, it is the group of alleles that now 'wants' to replicate, as if these clusters no co-operate with one another: their effects taken together start to cause the organism that possesses them to guard this cluster carefully via their sexual exclusivity. So replication imperative starts to look like only breeding with those as similar to you as possible. This becomes more dangerous the smaller the population. So now we have to look at the Jewish situation and say, "Of course it was beneficial to them because of their small numbers and because of their strategy." But, is this not circular? Have we not said that the genes were what caused the very circumstances, then, that made those very genes beneficial?
Here is an example of what I was saying before (referring to the paragraph of yours which followed this quoted sentence). You can make anything follow a rule. If the rule is survival (more simply: an explanation for being here today, as we observe the world), I can always make any feature fit that rule. Being able to test one's will is useful, because...sometimes circumstances make different alternatives better. A population with will-testers will be better suited for surviving than a population without will-testers.
I could do the same thing, however, with a population that had no will-testers. There is no reason at all to suppose that having qualia (something that it 'is like' to experience one's deliberative process, the 'what it is like' to feel thirst and possibly test one's will against satisfying it) is favored by genetics. You could think of a genome like a string of instructions in a computer program. Is it better if a computer can have an irreducible experience (qualia) of what it's like to follow its instructions? Or is it better for the computer's survival if it just follows the instructions. Put another way, all learning and deliberation could be purely psychological and not conscious. Here, by 'psychological', I mean a deterministic neuronal process with no conscious experience. For example, we might call the reflex to move one's hand away from a hot stove a kind of psychological learning. But how could genes ever transcend that level of learning/behavior? Shouldn't it all be psychological learning?
Why would genetics favor individual units (humans) becoming the appropriate test level? The alternative would be that each human individual represented a strategy. No huge resources spent food/nutrition/nurturance required for brains capable of deliberation. Just let each person be an 'all in' strategy. If they die, they die. That would actually favor more efficient removal of bad strategies from the population!
Why are things not playing out like an AI-generated system of all-in strategies? The population level would benefit if humans were more deterministic. There ought not be decision-making processes. You could think of human beings like computers designed by nature. No computer does a better job if it deliberates on its instructions. Whether my computer defied my clicking the mouse, and if this would be a good thing, is not a question we ask because it is silly.
The more you try to explain our mindedness, reasoning and deliberation (together with the futility of trying to explain them on a purely neurological basis), the more you realize it is outside the scope of genes to account for.
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO [op] 0 points 1.9 yearsMay 19, 2022 13:04:23 ago (+0/-0)
This is just anthropomorphizing the cow. I don't deny the cow can apprehend suffering. But I very much doubt if the cow perceives it is parasitized.
The relationship between farmers and livestock - if humane - is commensal. These species would not exist in the wild. They'd be wiped out. They trade many benefits for the caveat that their life has a determined endpoint: slaughter. The tradeoff is quite great though. They are fed, kept healthy, protected from natural threats. The idea is basically to give them the happiest life possible because that promotes the best product for human consumption.
They'd face worse realities in the wild. Of course, I'm not arguing the cow or the chicken perceives any of this. But the relationship is not parasitic. A parasitic relationship assumes that the host is independently successful, hence the parasite which seeks to leech from that existing foundation.
[ + ] deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 1.9 yearsMay 19, 2022 07:07:35 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 1.9 yearsMay 19, 2022 07:36:13 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 1.9 yearsMay 19, 2022 07:56:32 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 1.9 yearsMay 19, 2022 08:25:25 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 1.9 yearsMay 19, 2022 08:33:09 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 1.9 yearsMay 19, 2022 08:45:00 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 1.9 yearsMay 19, 2022 08:51:29 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ]deleted
[ - ] deleted 2 points 1.9 yearsMay 17, 2022 19:08:26 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] aer9ERub
[ - ] aer9ERub 2 points 1.9 yearsMay 17, 2022 18:41:59 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO [op] 1 point 1.9 yearsMay 18, 2022 00:19:39 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] DelaporesCat
[ - ] DelaporesCat 1 point 1.9 yearsMay 18, 2022 00:35:19 ago (+1/-0)
He wrote it in 1949 and I'm sure they'll memory hole it eventually.
[ + ] AtomicForeskin
[ - ] AtomicForeskin 1 point 1.9 yearsMay 17, 2022 23:19:43 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO [op] 2 points 1.9 yearsMay 18, 2022 00:17:39 ago (+2/-0)*
This idea is attacking that bias. It is saying that it wasn't even for today. You are so insignificant that your reality was programmed years ago, and the things you think are happening today are actually for a future generation. You are not even participating in what you think is present history. You're participating in a 'present past'. This is why the news reporting seems so outlandish. It's not about informing anybody today. It's about establishing a past for the future.
It's on the fringe; don't get me wrong.
[ + ] AtomicForeskin
[ - ] AtomicForeskin 2 points 1.9 yearsMay 18, 2022 00:39:53 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO [op] 0 points 1.9 yearsMay 18, 2022 00:47:59 ago (+0/-0)
I do agree.
[ + ] beece
[ - ] beece 1 point 1.9 yearsMay 17, 2022 22:56:20 ago (+1/-0)*
History was falsified so that what people believe occurred in WW1 today in 2022 isn't what really happened, but if you dig in today you can still get the truth. In 100 years into the future, maybe not. What we believe has been falsified in many, many layers.
Fascinating really. Those who want to overthrow those that rule us would be wise to look into how they are controlling everyone's minds, and use that as the pushback location to start on.
[ + ] Clubberlang
[ - ] Clubberlang 1 point 1.9 yearsMay 17, 2022 21:07:20 ago (+1/-0)
Don't be a loser.
[ + ] Boardallday3
[ - ] Boardallday3 0 points 1.9 yearsMay 17, 2022 19:19:17 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Trumpman1488
[ - ] Trumpman1488 -1 points 1.9 yearsMay 18, 2022 04:58:36 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] big_fat_dangus
[ - ] big_fat_dangus -3 points 1.9 yearsMay 17, 2022 19:01:08 ago (+1/-4)
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO [op] 1 point 1.9 yearsMay 18, 2022 00:17:58 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 1 point 1.9 yearsMay 18, 2022 10:32:15 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] big_fat_dangus
[ - ] big_fat_dangus -1 points 1.9 yearsMay 18, 2022 12:49:14 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 1 point 1.9 yearsMay 18, 2022 17:36:51 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] big_fat_dangus
[ - ] big_fat_dangus 0 points 1.9 yearsMay 18, 2022 17:48:28 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 1.9 yearsMay 18, 2022 18:35:43 ago (+0/-0)
Go look for more vids of hookers getting punched. I love those. They’re so poignant.
[ + ] big_fat_dangus
[ - ] big_fat_dangus 0 points 1.9 yearsMay 18, 2022 22:08:09 ago (+0/-0)